How good a manager is Benitez really ?

So to sum up, the general consensus is that:

1) Benitez is an average manager
2) Liverpool are a one-man team with a load of mid-table players
3) Gerrard, the one man, isn't actually that good anyway.

Frickin amazing how we finished 3rd last year and we're 3rd now really.

It must all be down to that great Anfield crowd.

Roger_Hunt wrote:So to sum up, the general consensus is that:

1) Benitez is an average manager
2) Liverpool are a one-man team with a load of mid-table players
3) Gerrard, the one man, isn't actually that good anyway.

Frickin amazing how we finished 3rd last year and we're 3rd now really.

It must all be down to that great Anfield crowd.

which isn't good itself because it supports the team at all times

Tweedle wrote:

Cesc wrote:

COTR wrote:it means is our reserves are shit so that doesn't really bother me

But thats your future though.......

Exactly.

I thought Paletta, Peltier et al were supposed to be future regualrs for Liverpool.

what like aliadiere and quincy etc etc etc... you could list a thousand arsenal youngsters who haven't made it... stupid comment.

Roger_Hunt wrote:So to sum up, the general consensus is that:

1) Benitez is an average manager
2) Liverpool are a one-man team with a load of mid-table players
3) Gerrard, the one man, isn't actually that good anyway.

Frickin amazing how we finished 3rd last year and we're 3rd now really.

It must all be down to that great Anfield crowd.

No, I think generally you have some very good players, but you also have some areas that still need strengthening, like most clubs I suppose.

Benitez is a top manager but hes not the best at developing youths it appears and possibly not the shrewdest in the transfer market although hes a lot better than Houillier

Roger_Hunt wrote:So to sum up, the general consensus is that:

1) Benitez is an average manager
2) Liverpool are a one-man team with a load of mid-table players
3) Gerrard, the one man, isn't actually that good anyway.

Frickin amazing how we finished 3rd last year and we're 3rd now really.

It must all be down to that great Anfield crowd.

I thought Dudek was that "one man", after I read this thread

He is really walking alone these days at Anfield....

COTR wrote:

Tweedle wrote:

Cesc wrote:

COTR wrote:it means is our reserves are shit so that doesn't really bother me

But thats your future though.......

Exactly.

I thought Paletta, Peltier et al were supposed to be future regualrs for Liverpool.

what like aliadiere and quincy etc etc etc... you could list a thousand arsenal youngsters who haven't made it... stupid comment.

I have never said that either of these would be future arsenal regualrs, however I have seen Liverpool posters getting pretty excited about Paletta especially and also Insua when he finally joins. Will he end out to be just another Paletta?

Ric Jol wrote:
I thought Dudek was that "one man", after I read this thread

He is really walking alone these days at Anfield....

He's not helping his case by bleating that it's Rafa's fault he's let in 9 goals in 2 games because he doesn't get enough games...

Parks lives wrote:So a re-think on your squad depth then?

didnt your reserves lose to southend...

Squad depth is different from playing a mixture of youngsters, reserves and the odd first team member. for example at the minute we have four left wingers out (kewell, gonzalez, zenden, garcia), but we'll still have enough depth to cope with this. it's different from the CL winning season when we had literally no fit strikers and were taking on the might of the CL with neil mellor and anthony le tallec as the main striking options

Tweedle wrote:

SGM wrote: it would have been 4-3...

No it wouldn't.

We wouldn't have been so sloppy in defence for the last two goals if we weren't already six ahead.

Liverpool got beat fair and square

Tweeds, two of your goals should not have counted, and the score at halftime would have been 2-1 if it weren't for the referee.

Only an Arsenal fan could call this 'fair'. It's hardly like this is a new thing either - remember the game against Fulham when the ref awarded a penalty against Arsenal and then changed his mind 'because of the Arsenal players' reactions'?

SGM, the first pool goal was offside...all be it marginally.

SGM wrote: remember the game against Fulham when the ref awarded a penalty against Arsenal and then changed his mind 'because of the Arsenal players' reactions'?

That indeed was a fucking joke.

SGM wrote:

Tweeds, two of your goals should not have counted, and the score at halftime would have been 2-1 if it weren't for the referee.

Only an Arsenal fan could call this 'fair'. It's hardly like this is a new thing either - remember the game against Fulham when the ref awarded a penalty against Arsenal and then changed his mind 'because of the Arsenal players' reactions'?

Well that may be but they were counted, for all we know if they hadn't been counted then we may have scored two more anyway.

Tweedle wrote:

SGM wrote:

Tweeds, two of your goals should not have counted, and the score at halftime would have been 2-1 if it weren't for the referee.

Only an Arsenal fan could call this 'fair'. It's hardly like this is a new thing either - remember the game against Fulham when the ref awarded a penalty against Arsenal and then changed his mind 'because of the Arsenal players' reactions'?

Well that may be but they were counted, for all we know if they hadn't been counted then we may have scored two more anyway.

Rosicky wrote:SGM, the first pool goal was offside...all be it marginally.

I'm not convinced of that one, though I wouldn't have been surprised to see it ruled out for offside.

Still, 2-0 at halftime is better than 4-1. Face it, Arsenal got very lucky in that they got two goals in quick succession that killed the game, both of which should have been ruled out.

SGM wrote:Tweeds, two of your goals should not have counted, and the score at halftime would have been 2-1 if it weren't for the referee.

Technically 2-0, there goal could have easily been given offside.

SGM wrote:Only an Arsenal fan could call this 'fair'. It's hardly like this is a new thing either - remember the game against Fulham when the ref awarded a penalty against Arsenal and then changed his mind 'because of the Arsenal players' reactions'?

It was because of the Fulham players reaction to the incident rather than our players reaction. When Cole went down in the box none of the Fulham players protested, it caused the referee to rethink his decision with the linesman.

Parks lives wrote:

SGM wrote: remember the game against Fulham when the ref awarded a penalty against Arsenal and then changed his mind 'because of the Arsenal players' reactions'?

That indeed was a fucking joke.

Its just that our players are intelligent enough to coherantly put across a reasoned arguement that was believable to the ref.

You're just upset that your players have to resort to intimidation tactics that very rarely work

Tweedle wrote:

SGM wrote:

Tweeds, two of your goals should not have counted, and the score at halftime would have been 2-1 if it weren't for the referee.

Only an Arsenal fan could call this 'fair'. It's hardly like this is a new thing either - remember the game against Fulham when the ref awarded a penalty against Arsenal and then changed his mind 'because of the Arsenal players' reactions'?

Well that may be but they were counted, for all we know if they hadn't been counted then we may have scored two more anyway.

Right, so now 'got beaten fair and square' has become 'may have been this, may have been that'.

Thank you for the dramatic change of tune to reflect my superior argument.

Good Lord.

Tweeds - Arsenal deserved the win, fair play to you

How do I feel about it? I'm upset about Saturday - definitely. The League Cup I really can't get bothered with. The nature of the defeat was embarassing, but frankly its a small step up from a friendly. Losing Garcia was more of an issue.

I'll quite happily trade the two cup losses for two back-to-back league wins - here's hoping:k:

ha! I didn't withdraw the 'fair and square' comment saints

6-3 and 3-1 is how the scores will be remembered, and of course that fantastic goal from Onree

Roger_Hunt wrote:Good Lord.

Tweeds - Arsenal deserved the win, fair play to you :k:

How do I feel about it? I'm upset about Saturday - definitely. The League Cup I really can't get bothered with. The nature of the defeat was embarassing, but frankly its a small step up from a friendly. Losing Garcia was more of an issue.

I'll quite happily trade the two cup losses for two back-to-back league wins - here's hoping:k:

Aye, we could do with those back to back league wins (and so could Chelsea)

Cesc wrote:

SGM wrote:Only an Arsenal fan could call this 'fair'. It's hardly like this is a new thing either - remember the game against Fulham when the ref awarded a penalty against Arsenal and then changed his mind 'because of the Arsenal players' reactions'?

It was because of the Fulham players reaction to the incident rather than our players reaction. When Cole went down in the box none of the Fulham players protested, it caused the referee to rethink his decision with the linesman.

Still not a good way to guage decisions is it?

Tweedle wrote:ha! I didn't withdraw the 'fair and square' comment saints

Your change in tone was an effective withdrawal.

6-3 and 3-1 is how the scores will be remembered, and of course that fantastic goal from Onree

Sidestepping the one-dimensional pace merchant, I'll remember this one for ages, and bring it up each and every time Arsenal get another ridiculous refereeing decision.

I'm not even saying that Arsenal didn't deserve to win, but nonetheless you can't deny that getting two goals in quick succession that should have been disallowed is extremely fortunate, and I can't remember another game this season where the referee gave one team so much help (the penalty too, was a poor decision).

Parks lives wrote:Still not a good way to guage decisions is it?

Of course not - You want the referee the be 100% certain with his own decisions.

I just find the suggestion that we influenced the referee a little far fetched.

Why back to back league wins, wont make much of a diffrence in the league as your not going to win it and your going to come in the top anyway. Were as with the cups, you had a genuine chance to win it.

The league cup is crap, but people mention cahrity shields and super cups as genuine trophies on this message board and they are just friendlies. Its funny how pool fans change there minds about it, as they used to get annoyed when rival fans mocked there success in 2001 by calling it the plastic treble.

A trophy is a trophy and winning a trophy is better than winning nothing.

Cesc wrote:

Parks lives wrote:Still not a good way to guage decisions is it?

Of course not - You want the referee the be 100% certain with his own decisions.

I just find the suggestion that we influenced the referee a little far fetched.

I'm not suggesting that the players influenced the ref. The brown envelope shoved under the door of the officials' dressing room signed 'Arsene' may have had something to do with it...

@ saints

I admit it was bad luck on Liverpools part but these decisions tend to even out over the season.

Liverpool were lucky that their bad luck came in the elague cup rather than in an important league game.

Rez wrote:
The league cup is crap, but people mention cahrity shields and super cups as genuine trophies on this message board and they are just friendlies. Its funny how pool fans change there minds about it, as they used to get annoyed when rival fans mocked there success in 2001 by calling it the plastic treble.

So Liverpool are not the most successful team since the turn of the Millenium?

Tweedle wrote:@ saints

I admit it was bad luck on Liverpools part but these decisions tend to even out over the season.

Liverpool were lucky that their bad luck came in the elague cup rather than in an important league game.

Oh right, so it was bad luck on Arsenal's part that they got three ludicrous decisions in the same game, when it was only the Carling Cup?

Arsene's got you wrapped around his little finger...

Parks lives wrote:

Rez wrote:
The league cup is crap, but people mention cahrity shields and super cups as genuine trophies on this message board and they are just friendlies. Its funny how pool fans change there minds about it, as they used to get annoyed when rival fans mocked there success in 2001 by calling it the plastic treble.

So Liverpool are not the most successful team since the turn of the Millenium?

Keep your head in the sand about this one if you wish Spank

We've won the most trophies and this is a fact. manipulate it how you please

Rez wrote: Why back to back league wins, wont make much of a diffrence in the league as your not going to win it and your going to come in the top anyway. Were as with the cups, you had a genuine chance to win it.

But there is a real difference between 3rd and 2nd, both really (not having to qualify for CL and therefore having the money guaranteed at the start of the transfer window) and psychologically (progress from last year). Plus I seem to recall lots of people getting very agitated about us being '30 points off the top'. And at the moment we the top of a pack of teams chasing 3rd, we can't afford to drop points.

Rez wrote:
The league cup is crap, but people mention cahrity shields and super cups as genuine trophies on this message board and they are just friendlies. Its funny how pool fans change there minds about it, as they used to get annoyed when rival fans mocked there success in 2001 by calling it the plastic treble.

Actually I think it was Parks who officially pronounced that the League Cup was no longer a Mickey Mouse trophy last year.

Rez wrote:
A trophy is a trophy and winning a trophy is better than winning nothing.

No - 2nd place would be better than the Carling Cup - and 3rd/4th and no CC would be better than 5th and winning it.